The court ruled that an adoption deed is invalid if the adopted person is married and over the age limit, rendering the suit an abuse of process.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition challenges the very presentation of the suit in O.S.No.691 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Coimbatore.

2. The case of the plaintiff Mr.Hariraj is that he was adopted by one Mr.Boopathy on 11.02.1998. As Boopathy passed away on 26.02.2013, he claimed that he has succeeded to the estate of Boopathy by virtue of an adoption deed. The siblings of the deceased Boopathy had presented a suit in O.S.No.2639 of 2013 seeking for a declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Boopathy. On that basis, they had proceeded to divide the properties among themselves.

3. The plaintiff claimed by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, he is a Class-I heir and therefore, the decree in O.S.No.2639 of 2013 is null and void. Hence, he presented O.S.No.691 of 2023 to cancel the decree in O.S.No.2639 of 2013 dated 02.04.2014. The 1st defendant in the suit namely, Mrs.B.Revathy was the 5th plaintiff in O.S.No.2639 of 2013. Therefore, she was impleaded as a party to the suit and the present suit came to be filed.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the presentation of the plaint, Mrs.B.Revathy is on revision before me.

5. I heard Mr.V.Raghupathy for Mr.Suresh V. Souli and Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy for the 1st respondent and Mr.N.Muthuvel for respondents 2 & 3.

6. Being a revision challenging the plaint, I cannot go into the question of the defence that is raised by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. I have to confine myself to the averments made in the plaint and the plaint documents and find out if the suit is an abuse of process of law or whether it is barred by any provision of law.

7. The undisputed facts are, one Subbaraju married Adhilakshmi and begot five sons and four daughters. For the sake of easy understanding, the genealogy chart as given in the plaint is extracted hereunder:

8. There is no dispute that the third son Boopathy, who was a lawyer practising in Coimbatore, married one Chandradevi. The said Chandradevi pre-deceased Boopathy. She passed away on 27.08.1999. Unfortunately, from the wedlock between Boopathy and Chandradevi, there were no issues. As pointed out above, Boopathy passed away on 26.02.2013. Since there were no Class-I heirs, his siblings namely, Venkatapathy, Thirumalpathy, S.Raghupathy, Rajamani and B.Revathy falling under Category-II of Class-(II) filed a suit for declaration that they are the legal heirs of late Boopathy. They impleaded the District Collector, Coimbatore and Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk as parties and presented the plaint. On service of summons, the Court went into the relationship and declared that the siblings of Boopathy are the legal heirs of the deceased person and granted a decree on 02.04.2014.

9. This decree was put into challenge in O.S.No.352 of 2015 by one Mohankumaran. In the said suit, the present plaintiff Mr.Hariraj was impleaded as the 8th defendant. The suit came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 07.02.2017. The 8th defendant, who was served with the summons, did not enter appearance in the said suit. Thereafter, he seems to have waited for six more years to present the present suit seeking for cancellation of the decree in O.S.No.2639 of 2013.

10. Mr.V.Raghupathy argues that the foundation of the case of the plaintiff is that Boopathy and Chandradevi had adopted the plaintiff on 11.02.1998. He points out that, on the date of the alleged adoption, the plaintiff was aged about 46 years. He draws my attention to the adoption deed that had been filed as plaint document No.1.

11. A perusal of the said document, which is enclosed at pageno.36 of the typed set of papers, shows that the plea of Mr.V.Raghupathy is correct. It reads that Hariraj was aged about 46 years and on 11.02.1998, the deceased Boopathy and Chandradevi are said to have adopted the said Hariraj from that day onwards. Hence, he pleads that the suit is an abuse of process of law, as it is contrary to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

12. Per contra, Mr.S.Lakshmana